4.2.

Heat Transfer with High-Finned Trufin Tubes

4.2.1. Fin Temperature Distribution and Fin Efficiency
1. Temperature Distribution in Fins. The temperature
in a fin is not constant, due to the resistance to
conductive heat transfer in the fin metal. A typical
temperature profile in a fin is shown in Fig. 4.12.

The details of calculating the temperature distribution

are quite complex and will not be given here; the most
comprehensive reference on this subject is the book,
"Extended Surface Heat Transfer" by Kern and Kraus
(3). The results depend upon a number of
parameters, including fin geometry (shape, height,
and thickness), fin material, and outside fluid
temperature and heat transfer coefficient. It is also
necessary to make a number of assumptions; for
example, most analyses assume that the outside fluid
has a constant bulk temperature and a constant heat
transfer coefficient at all points on the fin surface. This
is known not to be true, but the real state of affairs is
not well understood and would introduce great
complexity into the analysis if one tried to be
completely rigorous. As a practical matter, the results
obtained from the simplified analysis seem to be
consistent with experience and lead to acceptable
designs.

The subject of fin efficiency was discussed in Chapter I, and curves for fin efficiency and fin resistance
were given for low-finned Trufin. Since the values for high fin were not given, the method of obtaining the
values will be repeated.

2. Fin Efficiency and Resistance. The fin efficiency, Φ, is the ratio of the total heat transferred from the
real fin in a given situation to the total heat that would be transferred if the fin were isothermal at its base
temperature. For the kinds of fins that are considered here, a good equation to use over the range of
interest is:

1
Φ= (4.1)
m2 do
1+
3 dr

where

215
 2
m=H (4.2)
⎛1 ⎞
⎜⎜ + R fo ⎟⎟k wY
⎝ ho ⎠

Equation (4.1) is actually based upon fins of uniform thickness, whereas the fins on Wolverine high-finned
Trufin are actually slightly thicker at the base and thinner at the tips. The error is small and in fact the
Wolverine fins are slightly more efficient than this equation indicates.

The geometrical variables are defined in Fig. 4.2 and ho and Rfo are respectively the actual convective
heat transfer coefficient and the actual fouling resistance on the fin side, based on the fin area. To gain
an appreciation of the probable magnitude of Φ in a typical problem, consider the following example:

Type H/R tube, 3003 aluminum:

dr = 1.00 in.
do = 1.875 in.
H = 0.437 in.
s = 0.076 in.
Y = 0.015 in.
kw = 110 Btu/hr ft2°F
ho = 10 Btu/hr ft2°F
Rfo = 0.0

Then:

⎛ 0.437 ⎞ 2
m=⎜ ft ⎟ = 0.439
⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎛ 1 hr ft ° F ⎞⎛
2
Btu ⎞⎛ 0.015 ⎞
⎜ ⎟⎜110 ⎟⎜ ft ⎟
⎜ 10 Btu ⎟⎠⎜⎝ hr ft 2 ° F ⎟⎠⎝ 12 ⎠
⎝

1
Φ= = 0.919 , i.e., 91.9% fin efficiency
(0.439) 2 1.875
1+
3 1.000

There are small differences between the nominal dimensions and the actual dimensions, and some
variation from lot to lot in the latter. See Section 6 for details. Nominal dimensions will be used in the
examples in this Section.

As we will observe later, this efficiency is, if anything, biased towards the low side of most applications.
Cop per fins have a higher thermal conductivity and would give a higher Φ. (Copper nickel (90/10) would
give Φ = 0.730 under otherwise identical conditions, but is not commonly used for high-finned tubes.)
Thicker fins (our example used the thinnest available) would give higher efficiencies. The film heat
transfer coefficient was typical of atmospheric air under nominal operating conditions; an extreme value
of 20 Btu/hr ft°F would give Φ = 0.862.

A quantity somewhat more directly useful in design calculations is the "Fin Resistance", Rfin, defined as:

216
 ⎡ ⎤
⎢ 1 − Φ ⎥⎡ 1 ⎤
A fin =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ h + R fo ⎥ (4.3)
Aroot
⎢ A fin + Φ ⎥ ⎣ o ⎦
⎣ ⎦

where Aroot is the surface area of a unit length of plain(unfinned) tube between the fins and Afin is the heat
transfer area of all of the fins on a unit length of tube. Continuing with the example above, we can
compute the value of Rfin as follows:

⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ fins ⎞⎛ in. ⎞⎛ 0.076 ⎞

Aroot = π ⎜ ft ⎟⎜11 ⎟⎜⎜12 ⎟⎟⎜ ⎟ = 0.219 ft / ft of length
2
⎝ 12 ⎠⎝ in. ⎠⎝ ft ⎠⎝ 12 ⎠

⎧π
⎩4
[
A fin = ⎨ (1.875)2 − (1)2 ⎜ ]
⎛ 1 ⎞ 2 ⎫ ⎧⎪⎛ fins ⎞⎛ 2 sides ⎞⎛ 12 in ⎞⎫⎪
⎟ ft ⎬ × ⎨⎜11
⎝ 144 ⎠ ⎭ ⎪⎩⎝
⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎬ = 3.62 ft 2 / ft of length
in. ⎠⎜⎝ fin ⎟⎠⎜⎝ ft ⎟⎠⎪⎭

⎡ 1 − 0.919 ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤ hr ft 2 ° F
R fin = ⎢ ⎥⎢ + 0⎥ = 0.00827
⎢ 0.219 + 0.919 ⎥ ⎣⎢10 Btu / hr ft 2 ° F ⎥⎦ Btu
⎣ 3.62 ⎦

which corresponds to an effective heat transfer coefficient for the fins only of 121 Btu/hr ft2°F. This may
be compared to a typical value of h,, for air-cooled exchangers of 10 Btu/hr ft2°F, which indicates that the
fin resistance is only a small part of the total resistance to heat transfer.

The fin resistance then can be directly incorporated into the equation for the overall heat transfer
coefficient as follows:

1 1 Δx Ao ⎛A ⎞ 1 ⎛ Ao ⎞
= + R fo + R fin + + R fi ⎜⎜ o ⎟+ ⎜
⎟ h ⎜A
⎟
⎟ (4.4)
U o ho k w Am ⎝ Ai ⎠ i ⎝ i ⎠

The value of Rfin may be calculated for any desired case by using Eqns. 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.

4.2.2. Effect of Fouling on High-Finned Trufin

As a matter of consistency and principle, the analysis to this point has steadfastly incorporated the term
Rfo, the resistance due to fouling on the finned surface. As a matter of fact, fouling on high-finned Trufin
with air on the fins is seldom a serious problem, unless there is extensive deposition of material as from
massive corrosion (indicating a poor material choice) or a heavy dust storm or ingestion of debris. In the
latter cases, continued operation is out of the question, and there is no alternative but to shut down and
remove the obstructions. Under normal conditions, the continuous movement of air past the surface tends
to minimize deposition of sand and dust, and such deposits as may form can usually be removed by
occasionally running a compressed air jet over the surface. Accordingly, Rfo is usually taken as zero for
high finned Trufin applications.

217
4.2.3. Contact Resistance in Bimetallic Tubes

In Type L/C Trufin, there is an internal liner of a metal other than the 3003 aluminum of the outer tube and
fins. The two metals will sometimes be in imperfect contact with one another, leading to an additional
resistance to the flow of heat. Generally at low temperatures of the metal-to-metal interface, the liner is
exerting a positive pressure upon the aluminum finned tube. But as the tube temperature rises, the
aluminum expands more rapidly than the liner and a definite gap develops. The gap is filled with air,
introducing a substantial additional resistance to the flow of heat.

There have been several studies, both experimental and analytical, made of this problem and the results
have been surveyed by Kulkarni and Young (4). This paper and its references should be consulted for
details and predictive methods, but it is desirable to summarize here the main findings:

1. At the fabrication temperature of approximately 70°F, there is a positive contact pressure of about
400 psi for a stainless steel liner inside aluminum. Presumably a similar value would exist for
other liner metals.

2. This results in a contact resistance of about 0.00005 hr ft2°F/Btu, based upon the contact surface.
This is negligible for any practical application.

3. At the point of zero contact pressure (which occurs at a bond temperature of about 200-215°F in
the steel/aluminum case), the bond resistance has been measured to be about 0.0002 hr
ft2°F/Btu. This is still negligible for most applications.

4. At tube side fluid temperatures of 1000°F and air side temperatures of 200°F, the bond
resistance is computed to increase to values as high as 0.003 hr ft2°F/Btu (based on contact
area) at air side coefficients of 5 Btu/hr ft2°F (based on fin area) and 0.002 hr ft2°F/Btu for air side
coefficients of 10 Btu/hr ft2°F. When the corresponding area ratios (say between 1: 10 and 1:20)
are taken into account, bond resistance is seen to be about 10-25 percent of the total resistance
to heat transfer and definitely needs to be considered in the design. However, it would not seem
that a very detailed calculation of the effect is in order unless many such high temperature cases
are to be handled.

The complete formulation of the overall heat transfer coefficient calculation for the bimetallic tube
with contact resistance is then:

1
U0 = (4.5)
1 ⎛ Δx A ⎞ ⎛A ⎞ ⎛ Δx w Ao ⎞ ⎛A ⎞ 1 ⎛ Ao ⎞
+ R fo + R fin + ⎜⎜ w o ⎟⎟ + Rb ⎜⎜ o ⎟+⎜ ⎟ + R fi ⎜ o ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟
⎟ ⎜ k ⎟ ⎜A ⎟ h ⎜A ⎟
ho ⎝ w m ⎠1
k A ⎝ Ab ⎠ ⎝ w m ⎠2
A ⎝ i ⎠ i ⎝ i ⎠

⎛ Δx A ⎞
where ⎜⎜ w o ⎟ is the wall resistance for the fin metal root, Rb is the bond resistance based
⎟
⎝ k w Am ⎠1
⎛ Δx A ⎞
upon the bond contact area Ab, ⎜⎜ w o ⎟ is the wall resistance for the liner tube, and the other
⎟
⎝ k w Am ⎠2
terms have their usual meaning.

218